World War II, Researchers Have

¶ … World War II, researchers have introduced an enormous array of electrical devices and, increasingly, electronics of all types including personal computers, televisions, videocassette recorders, cellular telephones and so forth -- all of which contain various types and levels of toxic substances, including lead.

The country's landfills quickly became clogged with these devices and the leachate that resulted from this collection was found to contain inordinately high levels of these toxic substances, In response to these findings, a number of important steps have been taken to resolve this situation, including federal and state legislation and public-private initiatives targeted at reducing the levels of these toxic substances into the waste stream or better controlling them if and when they do arrive at a landfill facility.

The purpose of this study was to provide a review of the relevant peer-reviewed, scholarly and governmental literature concerning past and current waste management practices for electrical devices and electronic components in the United States to show that existing techniques have achieved an acceptable level of validity in mitigating their impact on the environment. A summary of the research, a discussion of current and future trends and recommendations are provided in the conclusion.

Electronic/Electrical Waste Management Practices in the United States Introduction By any measure, Americans produce more garbage than any other society on earth today, and while an increasing amount of this trash is being recycled, the nation's landfills are becoming choked with the nation's discards including a rapidly growing percentage of electrical devices and electronic components of every description.

Like the other types of trash that enter the universal waste stream, the flood of electrical devices and electronics that has been embraced by Americans since the end of World War II can also be recycled and there are ongoing efforts to identify new approaches that will improve the techniques used to extract precious metals and valuable recyclable materials from these products.

In the meantime, more and more electrical devices and electronic products such as personal computers, televisions, cellular telephones and so forth are still managing to find their way to the nation's landfills and illegal dump sites as well, and all of these devices contain varying levels of a wide range of toxic substances, including most particularly high levels of lead.

To identify past and current practices, this purpose of this paper was to provide an examination of the historic trends in electronic/electrical waste management practices used in the United States to determine their current efficacy in managing the electrical devices and electronics that enter the universal waste stream. A discussion of these issues based on relevant peer-reviewed, scholarly and governmental literature is followed by a summary of the research, current and future trends, and recommendations in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis The past 60 years or so have witnessed an explosive growth in the amount of electronics and electrical devices findings their way into the waste stream. For instance, Gebrewold (1999) reports that, "Since World War II, there has been a growth in new products based on the use of plastics and chemicals. With this growth, questions have arisen concerning the manner in which hazardous waste disposal is managed or mismanaged" (p. 11).

Indeed, at first glance, it would seem that the United States is being buried under a flood of electronics and electrical products such as discarded computers, monitors, cellular telephones, and televisions with one of the most toxic components of these devices being their lead content. In this regard, Brown (2004) emphasizes that, "Almost all electronic devices contain lead, and such devices are proliferating -- and becoming obsolete -- at breathtaking speed" (p. 734).

This point is also made by Hosansky (2004) who notes, "Computers, televisions and other electronic products are producing a worrisome byproduct. Across the country, billions of tons of potentially dangerous e-waste are piling up in landfills, warehouses and homes. The problem is getting more significant every year as innovations quickly render electronic products obsolete" (p. 20). According to Schmidt (2002), "e-Waste is the fastest growing component of municipal trash by a factor of three.

Consumer electronics in the United States already account for 70% of the heavy metals, including 40% of the lead, found in landfills. Getting all this toxic e-junk out of the waste stream is an environmental priority" (p. 188). In fact, although there are a number of toxic materials in most electronics and electric devices, lead is among the most toxic by far. For instance, based on the frequently cited findings of a report of 12 different types of electronic items typically found in landfills in the United States sponsored by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and published in July 2004, Timothy G. Townsend determined that these electronic items leached lead at concentrations that exceeded the EPA threshold for characterizing a waste as being hazardous. Townsend's report, entitled, "RCRA Toxicity Characterization of Computer CPUs and Other Discarded Electronic Devices," was an extension of a previous study concerning the cathode ray tubes (CRTs) that are used in computer monitors and televisions.

The previous study by Townsend and his colleagues was conducted in 1999 at the State University of Florida; the results of this study determined that color CRTs, when subjected to regulatory tests for hazardous waste, leached out 18.5 milligrams of lead per liter, a level that exceeded the 5 milligrams regulatory threshold for hazardous waste (Musson, Jang, Townsend & Chung, 1999). According to Brown, "CRTs contain an average of about four pounds of lead. There are smaller quantities in the solder used in other electronic devices" (p. 734).

In his more recent study, Townsend used an EPA test called the "toxicity characteristic leaching procedure" (TCLP) which determines the mobility of analytes in different waste types to determine the toxic content of a wide range of electronic items including computer central processing units (CPUs or the "towers" on personal computers), televisions, videocassette recorders, printers, cellular phones, remote controls, computer mice, keyboards, and smoke alarms.

Using the EPA procedures for conducting the TCLP, Townsend crushed these different waste products, mixed them with simulated leachate fluid composed of acetic acid base, and agitated the mix in a drum container for 18 hours; following this mixing process, the resulting leachate was examined to identify various levels of metal concentrations (Brown, 2004).

Following the TCLP's protocol, the toxicity characteristic leaching (TCLE) procedure used by Townsend to determine lead concentrations stipulates that concentrations of more than 5 milligrams per liter are regarded as hazardous and all of the devices that Townsend used in his test were shown to leach lead concentrations above the hazardous threshold under different conditions. In addition, virtually all types of electronics waste typically contain a wide range of other potentially toxic chemicals, including mercury, chromium, and brominated flame retardants (Brown, 2004).

Likewise, according to the editors of the Journal of Environmental Health, "Desktop computers are built with materials that contain toxic chemicals and are regarded as hazardous waste. Color monitors routinely fail toxicity characteristic leachate procedure (TCLP) tests, and testing in progress for other electronics indicates that CPUs, servers, and cell phones are unlikely to pass TCLP tests" (The importance of recycling computers, 2003, p. 51).

Taken together, it would seem that the sky is really falling after all and it is made of electrical devices and electronics, but the reality of the situation is that a number of significant initiatives have been making a difference in how these products are handled after they end their useful lifespan that prevent them from entering the waste stream at all.

Moreover, there are several efforts in place and underway that are specifically designed to provide a viable framework in which to manage these devices in a waste management setting and these are discussed further below. In response to these findings and other studies that emphasized the toxicity of electronics and electrical devices being discarded in the nation's landfills, a number of federal and state governmental as well as private industry initiatives have been implemented that have helped reverse or otherwise mitigate these trends.

Not surprisingly, the increasing amounts of these toxic chemicals have been the focus of an increasing amount of attention from federal and state policymakers in recent years and waste management practices are becoming more strict for electronics and electrical products. For instance, as early as 1965, the EPA implemented the Solid Waste Disposal Act to help reduce the amount of hazardous waste, including electronics and electrical devices, that were finding their way to the nation's landfills (Introduction to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 2005).

This legislation was followed in succession by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 and the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996 (Introduction to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 2005).

Moreover, the EPA has implemented its own initiatives to address the problem of so-called "e-waste." For instance, in 1989, EPA established the Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) program, in order to develop performance and cost data that could be used for pollution prevention actions in electronics manufacturing (Rappaport, 1999).

The WRITE initiative was a collaborative approach that drew upon industry, state, local governments as well as the EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory with the overall goal of developing more effective pollution prevention technologies that could assist the electronics manufacturing industry in developing a "crade to grave" approach to managing these products (Rappaport, 1999).

Besides these earlier efforts, in more recent years, increasingly rigorous laws and regulations have been implemented by the EPA with the goal of minimizing the impact of electronics and electrical device waste on the environment have began to make a major difference in recovering these toxic substances before they ever have a chance to become waste.

For instance, pursuant to the above-mentioned Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, it is now illegal for companies in the United States to simply discard hazardous waste, including electronics and electrical devices, in normal trash receptacles (The importance of recycling computers, 2003). In this regard, Gaba (2008) reports that, "The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes the so-called 'cradle to grave' program for the management of hazardous waste. Under Subtitle C.

Of RCRA, hazardous 'solid waste,' as defined by the EPA, is subject to extensive controls on its storage, transportation, and disposal" (p. 1053). Electronics manufacturers are also being required to secure a waste management permit pursuant to the provisions of the RCRA that helps the EPA better monitor the waste disposal practices being used for these products (Sullivan, Agardy & Traub, 2001). According to the EPA's introduction to the RCRA, the main goals of the act are to: 1.

To protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal; 2. To conserve energy and natural resources; 3. To reduce the amount of waste generated; and, 4. To ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner (Introduction to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 2005). Nevertheless, many computers, televisions, and other electronics continue to be discarded in landfills or waste-to-energy facilities.

It is estimated that more than 20 million PCs become obsolete yearly in the United States, representing a mounting pile -- hundreds of thousands of tons -- of lead, mercury, chromium, silver, and battery acids from nickel-cadmium, lithium, or sealed lead-acid batteries (The importance of recycling computers, 2003). When electronic equipment reaches the end of its useful life, the businesses that own them should plan to recycle, donate, or otherwise ensure that they are not placed in the universal waste stream (The importance of recycling computers, 2003).

In fact, Robert Tonetti, senior environmental scientist with the EPA's Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C., reports that it is the official policy of the EPA that because obsolete electronics are frequently able to be recycled and reused, such equipment is not classified as "waste" until such time as a decision is made that any such devices are incapable of being reused in any meaningful way (Tonetti, 2007). Besides these efforts, other waste management approaches for CRTs have been found to be appropriate in certain circumstances.

For instance, Korenstein (2005) emphasizes that, "Although lead is known to cause human health problems, the likelihood of exposure is considered de minimus when the lead is contained in unbroken CRT glass. It can be assumed then that safe transport of computer monitors from a household to an appropriate recycling facility is possible" (p. 36).

While it is reasonable to suggest that not all municipalities will follow the same exact practices, it is also reasonable to suggest that there are adequate approaches in place in many communities across the country that allow the safe transport of e-waste to disposal sites in ways that prevent their being crushed along the way.

In this regard, Korenstein concludes that, "Thus, it is clear that CRTs are a high-volume waste and are associated with a nominal risk of exposure when normally handled, making CRT placement in the universal-waste stream appropriate" (p. 36).

Moreover, simply placing electronics in dumps is illegal outright, and pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or more commonly known as the "Superfund"), there is a growing tendency in a number of states for the original owner downstream liability to be held accountable for the improper disposal of hazardous wastes (The importance of recycling computers, 2003). Across the country, though, laws in various states differ; for example, Massachusetts has banned the disposal of CRTs in landfills or waste-to-energy plants altogether (The importance of recycling computers, 2003).

At the federal level, legislative initiatives concerning these issues are also being approach on a state-by-state basis; however the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI), described by these authors as being, "A multi-stakeholder discussion among equipment manufacturers, state and local governments, environmental advocacy groups, and other nongovernmental organizations," has made an effort to develop a set of best practices that will improve manufacturer responsibility in the United States in coming years (The importance of recycling computers, 2003).

According to Short (2004), initiatives such as NEPSI are becoming increasingly commonplace across the country, particularly at the state level. In this regard, Short predicted that, "Wide-scale changes in product take-back and recycling could be on the way in the United States. Environmental groups advocate action regarding electronic waste, because it is the nation's fastest growing environmental problem, is known to be toxic, and causes long-term contamination when disposed in landfills" (p. 1217). As a result, a number of states have implemented various public-private initiatives that have demonstrated impressive results to date.

For example, Hosansky (2004) reports that, "Rhode Island launched the country's first statewide no-charge residential computer collection in 2001 with impressive success. Results are mind-boggling for a state with a population of slightly more than 1 million. More than 600,000 pounds of residential e-waste has been collected in three years" (p. 21). The state-level initiative being used by Rhode Island may not be appropriate for all states, but the results of this program clearly demonstrate what can be accomplished through a collaborative effort between the public and private sectors.

In this regard, Hosansky reports that in Rhode Island, community awareness of the program has helped contribute to its success: "Citizens drop off computers at collection sites throughout the state. State vendors pick them up and recycle the waste. Officials say public service ads are vital to the program's success" (p. 31). In fact, Rhode Island was in the vanguard of states that have enacted electronics and electrical device waste management practices.

As Hosansky points out, "The computer collection program is operated by a quasi-public state agency established by the legislature in 1974. The Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation was established to assist municipalities in developing and operating recycling and waste collection programs" (p. 21). In some cases, large-volume waste streams in the United States that have satisfied the technical definitions for hazardous waste that have historically been disposed in municipal landfills which are not typically designed to manage and store such wastes (Korenstein, 2005).

In an effort to better manage these types of waste products,, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed new streamlined hazardous waste management regulations on February 11, 1993 that are applied to these materials (Standards for Universal Waste Management, 1995), which are known as universal waste (Korenstein, 2005). At the time, the EPA maintains that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations used for managing hazardous waste would adversely affect collection and recycling initiatives (Korentein, 2005). The goals of the Universal Waste Rule were two-fold as follows: 1.

To encourage recycling and discourage disposal of widely generated hazardous wastes; and, 2. To provide incentives for the collection of the unregulated portions of these waste streams and manage those unregulated positions using the same systems developed for the regulated portion, thereby removing these unregulated portions from municipal waste sites (Standards for Universal Waste Management, 1995).

The State of California subsequently adopted an Emergency Universal Waste Rule (Cal-UWR) (California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2003) in early 2000; before this measure was adopted, though, wastes that were not included in the federal UWR in California were required to be managed as fully hazardous waste (Korenstein, 2005). According to this author, "Hazardous waste designation forces the generator (unless exempt) to file for a U.S. EPA identification number, limits storage time, necessitates usage of a registered transporter, and restricts disposal to a permitted hazardous waste facility.

These stringent rules can be burdensome and place a heavy financial load on generators of the waste" (Korenstein, 2005, p. 37). Furthermore, these overly restrictive standards fail to encourage the level of appropriate and responsible waste disposal practices that are required of the general public to make recycling programs a success (Korenstein, 2005).

Because of the perceived time-consuming and bureaucratic processes that have been used by municipalities in the past, many consumers may elect to try to circumvent legal and environmentally sound disposal practices in favor of simply chunking their old PC into their apartment complex dumpster. According to Korenstein, "This practice may pose a threat to human health and the environment. With this concern in mind, the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control promulgated UWR to control the disposal of CRTs in a less severe fashion" (2005, p. 37).

These approaches have increasingly been regarded.